2001 (1) TMI 961 - SC - Indian Laws

Courts Allow Second Complaint After Dismissal for Default, Not on Merits

JATINDER SINGH & ORS. Versus RANJIT KAUR

The Supreme Court held that filing a second complaint is permissible if the first one was dismissed for default and not on merits. The Court clarified ... - Issues:1. Whether a complaint, once dismissed by a magistrate for default, can be refiledRs.Analysis:The case involved the question of whether a complaint dismissed by a magistrate for default can be refiled. The appellant was accused of marrying twice, including with the sibling of their first spouse. The complainant filed a complaint against the appellant for bigamy and abetment of the offense. The first complaint was dismissed by the magistrate for default as the complainant was not present in court. Subsequently, the complainant filed a second complaint containing the same allegations. The magistrate took cognizance of the offense and issued process to the accused. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that a second complaint should not be maintainable after the first complaint was dismissed, either for default or on merits.The High Court held that since the first complaint was dismissed for default and not on merits, the second complaint was maintainable. The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and precedent cases to determine the legality of filing a second complaint. It was established that there is no statutory bar on filing a second complaint on the same allegations if the first complaint did not result in a conviction, acquittal, or discharge. However, if a complaint is dismissed on merits after an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, filing a second complaint would require exceptional circumstances. The Court cited previous judgments to clarify the conditions under which a second complaint can be entertained.The Court emphasized the importance of recording reasons for dismissing a complaint under Section 203 of the Code to enable the complainant to seek redressal through revisional courts. In this case, as the first complaint was dismissed for default and not on merits, the complainant was within their rights to file a second complaint. The Court rejected the appellant's argument that the complainant lacked bona fides for not disclosing the dismissal of the first complaint in the second complaint. The Court upheld the High Court's decision to restore the complaint and the proceedings, dismissing the appeal and affirming the legality of filing a second complaint after the first was dismissed for default.